About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
this on the eve of an election. again, i'm obviously not positing some huge conspiracy. in our environment, in our hyperpartisan environment, most people in a situation like this seeing any possibility for political advantage would have raced to expose something like this, right? general petraeus was confronted about this two weeks ago, right? two weeks before the election. chose -- ultimately decided to resign but didn't decide to resign at that moment. was there part of the reason he did not decide to resign immediately upon being confronted on this, he knew it would be embarrassing for the administration on the eve of an election? that's a reasonable inference. there's so much we don't know because so many people individually have not spoken publicly about the chain of events and their motivations in terms of keeping quiet at a moment of maximum political volatility. >> just to clarify because i've raised a lot of questions here, my biggest concern isn't what happened at the end. i understand there are a lot of conservatives that are going to be thinking that this was -- >> cover-up. >> benghaz
-- there might be a t.a.r.p. like environment where we do go over the cliff, the cliff, whatever that means, exactly, but we don't hit the first set of deadlines. something doesn't pass the first time, but then eventually some of the members of both sides are brought to heal by the prospect of -- >> the real -- not just the pending doom but doom actually present in their laps for a second. that seems like a possible scenario to me. i do think there still is, despite all sharp rhetoric, i still think on the republican side, which is so critical, this notion of the other thing you heard throughout all of the commentary for the last week and over the weekend is that the implications of the election still are -- is sinking in. republicans still -- you see with this continued criticism of romney's comments and so on. that's still setting? >> all right. you mentioned benghazi. let's go to the developments there in the on going controversy over the administration's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in bengha benghazi. members of congress are now vowing to find out why the cia's conclusi
to the attacks? what was our assessment, our united states assessment, of the environment and the conditions on the ground and had we in advance positioned the right resources to mitigate risk and to make sure that we could handle those known possibilities? >> all right. general marks, thank you very much. appreciate it. i want to go back to the attacks on israel and gaza. the u.n. security council now holding an emergency closed door session about the crisis. member nations called for this. maximum restraints so the situation does not deteriorate any further. the big fear is that the escalating violence could echo the 2008 war that led to israel's land invasion of gaza. the year-long war killed some 1,400 palestinians and israeli. fred joining us from jerusalem. fred, first of all, we saw the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaking earlier about the escalating violence, the tension here. here's what he said. >> no government would tolerate a situation where nearly one-fifth of its people live under a constant barrage of rockets and missile fire, and israel will not tolerate this
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)